Gakuba v. Rains et al
| Peter Gakuba |
| David Rains, Michelle Neese, John/Jane Does, 1-50 and Moss |
| 3:2019cv00437 |
| April 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 19, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Moss, Neese, and Rains on 6/27/2019. Waiver of Service due by 7/29/2019. (tjk) |
Filing 11
ORDER FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS upon RAINS, MOSS, and NEESE. The #1 Complaint survives screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, as follows: COUNTS 1, 2, 3, and 5 will receive further review against Defendants RAINS, MOSS, and NEESE. COUNT 4 is DISMISSED without prejudice from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendants JOHN/JANE DOES 1-50 are DISMISSED without prejudice from this action because the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against them. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Defendants JOHN/JANE DOES 1-50 as parties on the docket in CM/ECF. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/27/2019. (jsy)
|
|
Filing 10
Order DENYING #9 Motion for 45-Day Time Limit for Plaintiff to File All Pleadings. Plaintiff seeks a 45-day deadline for filing any document that is due in this case. Plaintiff has no pending deadlines, and the Court declines to enter an order based on his speculation regarding future events. Should the need arise, Plaintiff and/or Defendants may request an extension of any deadline in this matter on a case-by-case basis. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/10/2019. (jsy)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for up to 45 days Time Limit for Plaintiff to File all Pleadings by Peter Gakuba. (jaj) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER DENYING #6 Motion for Emergency Restraining Order, Preliminary, and Permanent Injunction and #7 Motion for Emergency Court Order to Preserve Evidence. The Motions focus on claims of retaliation and misconduct by non-parties that occurred after Plaintiff filed the underlying suit. The defendants named in the Complaint are Warden Neese, Warden Rains, Warden Moss, and John/Jane Does 1-50. The two Motions address the alleged misconduct of Officer Brinkman, Chaplain Mutayoba, Mike Swaher, and Officer Hanson, among others (but not defendants). Because both Motions (Docs. 6 and 7) focus on individuals and claims that are outside the scope of the Complaint, Plaintiff's Motions are DENIED. See Oswald v. Dep't of Corr., Case No. 17-CV-1437-PP, 2018 WL 4623583, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 26, 2018) (citing Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); Neuroscience, Inc. v. Forrest, No. 12-cv-813-bbc, 2013 WL 6331346, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 5, 2013) (denying motion for preliminary injunction because it raised issues outside scope of complaint)). Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/21/2019. (jsy)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Emergency Court Order to Preserve Evidence by Peter Gakuba. (jaj) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Judgment by Peter Gakuba. (jaj) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. #2 ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.98. The agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to forward the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of Court upon receipt of this Order. Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's prison trust fund account (including all deposits to the inmate account from any source) until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall forward payments from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of this Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the $350.00 filing fee is paid.In addition, Plaintiff shall note that the filing fees for multiple cases cumulate. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000). A prisoner who files one suit must remit 20% of his monthly income to the Clerk of the Court until his fees have been paid; a prisoner who files a second suit or an appeal must remit 40%; and so on. Newlin, 123 F.3d at 436. "Five suits or appeals mean that the prisoner's entire monthly income must be turned over to the court until the fees have been paid." Id. Payments shall be mailed to: Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois 62201. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Trust Fund Officer at the Robinson Correctional Center upon entry of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/1/2019. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 4 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Peter Gakuba. (jaj) |
|
Filing 3
NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 19-cv-437-NJR. The following is some information you should know regarding the initial stages of your lawsuit. After your filing fee status is determined, the Court will review your complaint to identify legally sufficient claims and defendants and dismiss any legally insufficient claims. See: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. The Court will conduct this review within the next 60 days and inform you of the findings in a Merit Review Order. No other action will be taken in your case during this time, absent extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, you do not need to submit any evidence, argument, motions, or other documents. If you filed a motion for recruitment of counsel along with your complaint, it will not be considered until the merit review is complete. Please note that any motion for recruitment of counsel must include evidence of your own efforts to find counsel, such as a list of the attorneys you contacted and copies of letters you sent or received. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). If you do not receive a Merit Review Order within the next 60 days, you may file a motion requesting the status of your case. In the event your claim(s) survive the merit review, further information and instruction will be provided to you at that time. In addition, several administrative matters warrant mention. Any communication directed to the Court should be in the form of a motion or other pleading and not a letter. All mail should be sent to: Clerk's Office, U.S. District Court, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201. A copy of the Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge form is attached to this Order. Finally, you are advised that if your address changes, you must notify the Court within seven days of the change by filing a Notice of Change of Address. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of your case. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/22/2019. (jsm2)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Peter Gakuba. (jsm2) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Peter Gakuba.(jsm2) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
